Charitable
Giving in PennsylvaniaCharitable giving is a fundamental component of the American
way of life. Over the past several months, America has seen how
eager and willing our nation's residents are to support those
in need. To learn more about charitable giving and organizations
in Pennsylvania, the Center for Rural Pennsylvania took a closer
look at charities, specifically those located in rural areas.

There
are 905 charitable organizations based in our state's rural counties
that are registered to solicit funds in Pennsylvania. Altogether,
these organizations collect about $132.3 million a year in contributions
and spend $2.1 billion on program services.

The Solicitation
of Funds for Charitable Purposes Act of 1990 requires all charitable
organizations, with a few exceptions, to register with the Pennsylvania
Department of State's Bureau of Charitable Organizations in order
to solicit funds in the state. More than 6,500 charitable organizations
are registered to solicit contributions in Pennsylvania. Of these,
5,351 are based within the state while the remaining 1,179 are
located in every other state in the nation except Hawaii.

The 905
charities based in Pennsylvania's rural counties represent 17
percent of the in-state total, meaning that the vast majority
are situated in urban counties. Butler (71), Franklin (70) and
Crawford (51) counties are home to the largest number of rural-based
charities in the state. More than half of Pennsylvania's rural
counties house fewer than 20 charities each. Every Pennsylvania
county houses the main office of at least one charitable organization.

While
rural charities number only 17 percent of the state's total, they
earn 22 percent of the total income generated by charities, or
$2.5 billion; an average of $2.8 million in income per organization.
Urban charities bring in less at $2.1 million per charity.

Rural
charities receive $132.3 million in annual charitable contributions,
representing 5 percent of total income. This figure is about $146,000
per organization. Urban charities earn 32 percent, or $2.9 billion,
of their income through donations, amounting to nearly $658,000
in donations per charity. Furthermore, charities based outside
the state earn 63 percent from donations or a whopping $12.3 million
per organization.

While
urban charities raise much more of their income through contributions,
rural charities appear to get more out of their fundraising dollars.
Charities in rural Pennsylvania spent $9.3 million on fundraising
ventures, which means that for every dollar spent, $14.18 was
brought in. Urban charities received $9.69 in contributions per
fundraising dollar spent and out-of-state charities took in $8.97
for every dollar spent.

In its
analysis, the Center for Rural Pennsylvania found that rural charities
spend about 98 percent of their annual income. Urban charities,
on the other hand, spend about 86 percent of their annual income.

Rural
Pennsylvania organizations spend 86 percent of their income on
program services, 12 percent on administrative services and less
than 1 percent on fundraising efforts. Urban organizations spend
72 percent of their income on program services, 11 percent on
administrative services and about 3 percent on fundraising efforts.
Out-of-state organizations spend 70 percent of their income on
program services, 6 percent on administrative expenses, and about
7 percent on fundraising.

Geographically,
the commonwealth's charities do not seem to be based in areas
of most need but in areas where these is more money. Thirty-three
percent are based in the southeast region where the per capita
income and education levels are highest. About 20 percent are
located in the south central region where poverty and unemployment
are lowest, and only 8 percent are located in the northwest region,
where poverty and unemployment are greatest. A straight urban/rural
comparison shows that there are nearly five times as many urban-based
charities as rural-based charities even though rural counties
have only three-fourths as much income, higher poverty and unemployment
rates, and lower education levels.

Like other
charities nationwide, charitable organizations in rural Pennsylvania
are providing their communities with much needed services and
support. It is encouraging to know that while these organizations
earn just 5 percent of their income from contributions, they spend
86 percent of it on services that aid and support individuals,
communities and resources.

Top Fundraising Organizations
Of all charitable organizations that solicit in Pennsylvania,
those that receive the most in annual contributions are:

Fidelity Charitable
Gift Fund - Public charity and donor-advised fund that provides
support for community and human services, arts and culture,
education, religion, health and medical research, and the
environment.

Chairman's MessageOver the past few months, Americans have come together to
demonstrate their unity and to offer their support to those affected
most by the tragic events of September 11. In the wake of those
events, Americans continue to do whatever they can - offer money,
time, resources, and expertise - to help the recovery efforts
in New York City, Washington, DC, and Somerset County, Pennsylvania.

While
the article on page 1 was researched and written before September
11, the Center for Rural Pennsylvania felt it would be appropriate
to feature this look at charities and their spending in this issue
of Rural Perspectives. Although the analysis does not include
the outpouring of funds and support that have been donated to
charitable organizations over the past months, it does provide
a basic understanding of the organizations operating in our state
and how much they collect and spend. From the analysis, it would
appear that rural-based charities tend to spend down most of their
budgets every year and spend the majority of their funds on program
services.

In a separate
article featured on page 4, program spending and program effectiveness
are the focus of a recent research project and report released
by the Center for Rural Pennsylvania. A Retrospective of Pennsylvania's
Economic Development Programs was conducted by faculty members
at East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania, and offers a look
at the state's economic development programs and their effectiveness
in generating jobs and income and in growing businesses. The report,
which is available by contacting the Center, rates the overall
effectiveness of these programs and offers recommendations to
decision-makers on which programs may help their areas achieve
specific development goals.

While
some programs are more effective in achieving specific development
goals in rural areas, others may serve specific purposes for other
areas and communities and may address unique problems and provide
useful solutions.

This issue
of Rural Perspectives also takes a look at drug and alcohol treatment
programs in rural areas, provides a Census 2000 update on rural
housing units, and offers some facts on the growing prison population.

Since
this is our last issue of the year, on behalf of the Center's
Board of Directors and staff, I extend our thanks to everyone
we have worked with in 2001. I would especially like to thank
the participants, sponsors, speakers and moderators of the Rural
Summit in the City. We will provide more on the outcome of the
Rural Summit in the January/February issue of Rural Perspectives.

I would
also add that, as we approach the holiday season and the New Year,
we continue to share our strength with each other throughout the
coming year and to continue to demonstrate our unity as a nation.

Are PA's Economic Development Programs Working?
Pennsylvania spends hundreds of millions of dollars on programs
and resources every year to stimulate economic development and
sustain the well being of the state's citizens. But are these
programs working, and more specifically, are they working in rural
Pennsylvania? These questions served as the rationale for a recently
completed research project, funded by the Center for Rural Pennsylvania
and conducted by researchers from East Stroudsburg University,
which examined the economic development programs administered
by the state Department of Community and Economic Development
(DCED) from 1987 through 1999. The research looked at how effective
these programs are in generating income, employment and business
growth. The programs studied are listed below.

Overview of results
The research shows that a number of funding sources, or programs,
have consistently emerged as highly effective. For this project,
effectiveness was defined as a positive change in per capita income,
employment and/or business establishments. Programs with a high
statistical correlation between funding and these growth factors
were identified as being the most effective. In rural Pennsylvania,
the top three programs impacting employment were the Community
Facilities Program, the Storage Tank Loan Fund, and the Pennsylvania
Industrial Development Authority. For per capita income, the number
one impacting program was the Machinery and Equipment Loan Fund.
The top three programs impacting business establishment growth
were the Pennsylvania Industrial Development Authority, Community
Facilities Program, and Storage Tank Loan Fund.

For Pennsylvania's
25 predominantly urban counties, the top three programs impacting
employment are the Pennsylvania Capital Loan Fund, the Customized
Job Training Program, and the Pennsylvania Minority Business Development
Authority. In the area of per capita income impact, the top three
programs were the Pennsylvania Capital Loan Fund, the Pennsylvania
Minority Business Development Fund, and the Business Infrastructure
Development Program. The top programs impacting business establishments
were the Industrial Communities Action Program, the Pennsylvania
Industrial Development Authority, and the Community Facilities
Program.

In terms
of dollars and how many went to rural Pennsylvania, 25 percent
of the $2.1 billion, or $553 million, in loans and grants were
distributed to the state's 42 rural counties. On a per capita
basis, expenditures were $225 per person in rural Pennsylvania
and $172 per person in urban areas of the Commonwealth.

Programs
not identified as significant growth contributors in the study
are not necessarily ineffective. There were a small number of
cases where specific development incentive programs could not
be properly evaluated because statistical records were not compatible
with the other variables in the research model. Therefore, the
researchers did not make specific recommendations on these programs.

The
research methodology
Researchers C. A. Christofides, Todd Behr, and Pats Neelakantan
studied the economic development programs administered by DCED
from 1987 to 1999 to determine the effectiveness of the programs
in generating income, employment, and business.

For the
study, economic development was defined as a general increase
in the living standards of a region. Since living standards are
directly related to employment and earnings, the researchers used
growth in per capita income, the number of jobs, and the number
of business establishments as proxies for economic development.
All three measures were used in the study to measure the effectiveness
of state run economic development programs. The researchers employed
appropriate statistical techniques to control for other factors
that can affect growth, such as population density, industry structure,
and other national variables.

They also
determined which economic development programs are the most successful
in achieving specific end results desired by decision-makers.

Overall,
the four main goals of the study were to:

develop a statistical
database:

develop summary
statistics to list the total amounts spent by each DCED incentive
program and rank counties by the amounts of development aid
received during the 13-year period;

develop statistical
evaluations of program effectiveness to determine the relationship
between county economic development and the various economic
incentive programs; and

develop program
rankings and policy recommendations to provide policy makers,
who must promote county economic development, with information
that may help them to decide which programs to promote to
achieve a desired objective.

Again,
the researchers noted that caution should be exercised when reviewing
the results because some programs that are statistically insignificant
may still serve specific purposes for some counties and may address
unique problems and provide useful solutions.

Want
more info?
For a copy of the report, A Retrospective of Pennsylvania's Economic
Development Programs, contact the Center for Rural Pennsylvania
at (717) 787-9555 or at email info@ruralpa.org.

Update: Census 2000
Rural Housing In the New Century
Census 2000 numbers show that housing is booming in rural Pennsylvania.
There were 4.9 million housing units in 1990 and 5.3 million in
2000, representing a growth of 8.4 percent. The increase demonstrates
that housing grew faster than the population, which showed a growth
of 6.0 percent. For example, from 1990 to 2000, for every 100
people that moved into a rural area, 63 new housing units were
built.

As new
homes were being built, however, others were left vacant. The
number of vacant homes in rural counties grew by more than 3,000
units, or 2 percent, from 1990 to 2000. This is minor compared
to the number of vacant homes in urban counties, which grew by
nearly 27,000 units, or 10.5 percent. In addition, 63 percent
of the vacant units in rural areas are seasonal-use places.

Not only
is the number of housing units increasing, but homeownership is
increasing as well. More than 75 percent of rural units are owner-occupied.
This homeownership rate of 76.3 percent is significantly higher
than the urban rate of 70 percent, and is one percentage point
higher than the 1990 rural rate.

Many rural
residents, however, do not live in typical households. Persons
living in group quarters make up 4 percent of Pennsylvania's rural
population. This is up from 3 percent in 1990. Group quarters
include correctional facilities, nursing homes, college dorms
and military quarters. Growth in group quarter housing is mostly
attributable to the increase in the correctional facility population,
which increased from 9,891 in the 1990 Census to 28,403 in 2000.

A Look
at Drug and Alcohol Treatment ProgramsAccess to illegal drugs in rural areas is increasing the need
for drug and alcohol treatment programs for rural residents. To
better understand the issues surrounding the need for treatment
programs, the Center for Rural Pennsylvania examined the characteristics
of drug treatment clients from rural Pennsylvania and compared
them to urban clients, the state, and the nation. The number of
persons in treatment programs was also compared to arrests for
drug and alcohol offenses and to county spending on drug and alcohol
services.

For the
analysis, the Center used data from the state Department of Health's
Bureau of Drug and Alcohol Programs; the Pennsylvania State Police's
Uniform Crime Report Division; the state Department of Community
and Economic Development's municipal statistics project; a 2000
study by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse
at Columbia University; and an annual survey by the Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

All state
and county treatment data refers to the 1999-2000 fiscal years
unless the 1994-1995 comparison is stated. To make the analysis
easier to read, the last date of the fiscal year is used to represent
the entire fiscal year.

Crime
data is from 1999, the most recent available, and 1994, the five-year
increment.

A sample
of the findings

Per capita, 52
out of 10,000 Pennsylvanians were in drug and alcohol treatment
programs in 2000. The numbers were similar for both rural
(54) and urban (52) areas.

More than 1,500
rural juveniles were in treatment programs in 2000, compared
to the more than 900 rural juveniles in treatment programs
in 1995. Of those in treatment in 2000, 11 percent were under
age 18, 79 percent were adults between the ages of 18 and
44, and 10 percent were 45 years old and older.

In terms of employment
status, 36 percent of rural Pennsylvanians in treatment programs
were unemployed, 29 percent held full-time jobs and 12 percent
were students. Of the urban Pennsylvanians in drug and alcohol
treatment programs, 52 percent were unemployed, 23 percent
worked full-time and 7 percent were students.

About 25 percent
of rural Pennsylvanians and 31 percent of urban Pennsylvanians
in treatment programs were female.

The four major
drugs of choice are alcohol, marijuana/hashish, cocaine/crack,
and heroin. In 1995, 71 percent of the 11,900 rural clients
identified alcohol as their primary drug of choice, while
in 2000, 61 percent of the 14,000 rural clients in treatment
programs did so.

Seventy-two percent
of rural clients and 73 percent of urban clients were treated
in their county of residence.

For rehabilitation
programs, counties pay for 35 percent of the cases, Medicaid
for 18 percent, clients for 10 percent, health insurance for
14 percent and other methods for the remainder.

While the total
number of crimes reported in rural Pennsylvania was about
the same in 1999 as in 1994, the number of drug abuse offenses
increased by 38 percent from just over 3,000 to nearly 4,500.
While overall arrests increased by 3.4 percent, arrests for
illegal drug use increased by 46 percent.

Reported DUI (Driving
Under the Influence) and DUI arrests each increased by about
2.5 percent, while drunkenness offenses and arrests decreased
by 16 and 21 percent, respectively.

Rural juveniles
make up 12 percent of total rural arrests for drug and alcohol
charges.

Arrests for illegal
drugs are becoming more prominent in rural Pennsylvania. Of
all rural drug and alcohol arrests in 1994, 88 percent of
both adult and juvenile charges were alcohol related and 12
percent were drug related. In 1999, 23 percent of adult arrests
were for drugs and 25 percent of juvenile arrests were for
drugs.

Rural Pennsylvania
counties spent $13.2 million for drug and alcohol services
in 1999, more than double the spending in 1994. This figure
amounts to 2.9 percent of human services spending, up from
1.9 in 1994, and 1.3 percent of total rural county expenditures,
up from 1994's 0.9 percent.

Drug and alcohol
expenditures per 1,000 population increased from $2,387 to
$5,169 from 1994 to 1999.

Want
more info?
For the fact sheet, A Look at Drug and Alcohol Treatment Programs,
call the Center for Rural Pennsylvania at (717) 787-9555 or email info@ruralpa.org.

JUST THE FACTS: Prison Population GrowthOne of the fastest growing segments of Pennsylvania's rural
population is prisoners. According to the U.S. Census Bureau,
between 1990 and 2000, the percentage of people in correctional
institutions in rural Pennsylvania increased 187 percent while
correctional institutions in urban areas experienced a 46 percent
increase.

Throughout
the rural United States, the prison population also increased.
During the 1990s, the number of prisoners in rural areas doubled,
while those in the nation's urban areas increased 64 percent.

The increase in rural prison population may be partially attributed
to a boom in prison construction. Between 1990 and 1995, more
than 200 new prisons were built in the United States, many of
which were state and federal facilities located in rural areas.
In Pennsylvania, 12 new state prisons opened from 1990 to 2000.

In 2000,
rural Pennsylvania was home to 28,403 prisoners. Nearly 56 percent
of these inmates were in state correctional institutions, 28 percent
were in federal institutions, and the remaining 16 percent were
in county prisons. In the state's urban areas, 92 percent of prisoners
were in local/county facilities or state prisons. According to
the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, in 1999, nearly 12
percent of the inmates in commonwealth prisons are from the state's
rural areas.

On a per
capita basis, rural areas have more prisoners than urban areas.
Census data shows that in 2000, rural areas had 11 prisoners for
every 1,000 residents while urban areas had only 5 prisoners for
every 1,000 residents. In 1990, rural areas had only 4 prisoners
for every 1,000 residents and urban areas had 3.5 for every 1,000.
The national average is slightly higher than in Pennsylvania.
In 2000, rural areas throughout the United States had 12 prisoners
for every 1,000 residents and urban areas had 6 for every 1,000
residents.

For numeration
purposes, the Census Bureau includes prisoners as part of the
county's or the municipality's total population and the increase
in prisoners has affected the population in rural areas. Between
1990 and 2000, Pennsylvania's rural county population increased
5.4 percent. If prisoners were factored out, the growth rate would
have been 4.7 percent. Urban areas would have seen only a slight
change of less than 0.2 percentage points if prisoners were factored
out. Two counties that gained population during the 1990s, Somerset
and Delaware, would have lost population if the prison population
were factored out. Nationally, 56 counties that gained population
during the 1990s would have lost population if prisoners were
not included.

Statistically,
rural prisons are also affecting the racial makeup of many rural
communities. Census Bureau data shows that about 16 percent of
rural Pennsylvania's non-white population are in prisons. In seven
predominantly rural counties, non-white prisoners comprise more
than 50 percent of these counties' total non-white population.

In Pennsylvania,
prisons are big business. In 2000, county, state, and federal
prisons employed more than 26,000 workers for a total payroll
of $79.3 billion.